Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1469 Benito Avenue - Staff Report (2)TO DATE: '/� �� �,�.� �- ' � c i rr ^'"'' �� �� AGENDA BURLINGAME I T EM 7t �,�:^;�:�:.. STAFF REPORT DATE ^ 9/16/85 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SU6MITTED '� I,� B Y �Y � SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVED 6Y APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR A CARPORT SUBJECT: IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK A"I' 1469 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 RECO��IMENDATION: that the City Council hold a public hearing and take action. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: l. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's July 29 and August 21, 1985 memos and the Director of Public Works' July 29, 1985 memo shall be met: 2. that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped P,ugust 15, 1985; and 3. that all construction shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame and if these standards cannot be achieved then the variance is not in effect. To grant a variance the Council must find that certain conditions exist on th� property (Code Sec. 25..54.020 a-d): a. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or class of uses in the district, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss; b. that such variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the property involved; c. that the granting of such variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvements; and d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. BACKGROUND; The applicants, Randy and Valerie Gibbs, are requesting a variance to place a carport 1' into the required 4' side yard setbacic in order to � -2- meet the code requirement for two covered on-site parking spaces for a remodeling of their home at 1469 Benito Avenue (Code Sec. 25.70.030). The remodeling includes the extension of the rear of the house 8' and the removal of the existing garage which is in the way of the rear addition. The carport will provide one covered parking space; the second covered parking space will be placed in the basement at the front of the house. Both covered parking spaces will be accessed from a single 16' curb cut. The width of the lot (47.5') does not allow proper separation for two curb cuts while protecting availabe on-street parking. The Planning Commission held two public hearings on the project, August 12 and August 26, 1985. The second hearing was held after the appli- cant requested to introduce a revised set of plans which staff had not reviewed at the August 12, 1985 meeting. The Commission moved to deny the revised plans because they did not feel that the proposal met the variance requirements and there were alternatives to providing the parking which did not reguire a variance. The motion to deny was passed 5-2 (Commissioners Schwalm and Garcia dissenting). The Commission's discussion addressed additional paving in the front yard for the two driveways, stairway access to the house, narrower width (9') of the entrance to the carport because of the location of the front stairs, impact on on-street parking for two curb cuts, dimensions of the basement garage area and possibly of this area accommodating two cars, setbacks of other homes in the area which are 3', loss of rear yard area for future pool if garage is placed in the rear yard, poor visibility of passing traffic because of the curve in the street at this point, and purpose of the variance is to overcome a problem when there are no alternatives, in this case there appear to be two alternatives. The City Engineer noted at the hearing that if the driveway were placed as shown then it would be difficult for a car to gain access to the garage area below the house. Backing onto the street from an R-1 zone is allowed; however, a difficult turning maneuver will be necessary in order to back out of the garage driveway. EXHIBITS- - Planning Commission Minutes, August 2b, 1985 - Planning Commission Minutes, August 12, 1985 - Planning Commission Staff Report, August 26, 1985 - Planning Commission Staff Report, August 12, 1985 (w/attachments) - Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed September 6, 1985 - Plans date stamped August 15, 1985 MM/s cc: Randy and Valerie Gibbs Planning Commission Minutes Au�ust 26. 19�5 3. VARIANCE '�O CONSTRUCT A CARPORT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, PROPERTY AT 1469 BENITO AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 1985) Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the revised plans, CE's comments, Planning issues and concerns. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CA determined C. Taylor who was absent at the August 12, 1985 meeting was eligible to act on the application this evening since he had read the minutes and staff report and had seen the plans. Commission discussion: carport is 9' wide at the entrance but then widens to 10'; 16' curb cut is acceptable, two curb cuts are not allowed on this size lot because of impact on on-street parking; dimensions of garage. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Randy Gibbs, applicant, presented a letter in support from the following neighbors: Richard Trudell, 1452 Benito Avenue; Paul Sciabica, 1480 Benito Avenue; Ernest and Bernadean Weiss, 1465 Benito Avenue; George E. Paul, 2627 Hale Drive. Further Commission discussion: a 10' x 20' garage will accommodate one car; possibility of providing space for two cars under the house, this would affect the front stairs and be expensive. One Commissioner commented that many other sites in this neighborhood have 3' side yards, this proposal would allow the applicant area in the rear for his chldren to play, th� neighbors have not objected and considering all factors involved he did not feel it would be out of line to allow the applicant to improve his property and allow his family to enjoy it. Another commented that from a site inspection it appeared this oversized lot has a large rear yar3, approval of the variance would set a precedent for others, she was concerned about a double curb cut, on-street parking is limited, there is poor visibility and it would be a dangerous situation. Further comment: the variance procedure is included in the code to overcome a problem when therz are no alternatives, in this case there are two alternatives; do not find any exceptional circumstances that could not be remedied by hiring an architect to draw up alternative plans. With findings that this proposal does not meet the variance requirements of the City of Burlingame and that there are alternatives to the project, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variance seconded by C. Graham. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Schwalm and Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. The applicants were pres��°t. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was c��d. Denni� Loucks, applicant, commented on their desire to re ace their old garage which is in poor condition with a slightly ger structure at the`same location, they do not wish to put the ne garage at the rear of the lot because the driveway would be unre onably long and would result in loss of some landscaping, the pr ent location provides a screen for.sound and view for the applicants nd their neighbors. Responding to�Gommission question, applicant dvised roll-up doors at each end of the��garage are proposed to al movement of gardening vehicles without�l�isturbing existing lan 'caping. Commission discussion: existing gar possibility of moving`the structur� to retain useable open s,pace beh�r�d .. �� foundation will be replaced; farther back and applicants' desire the house; drainage. C. Jacobs found there were''.ex�ptional circumstances in that the garage and house have been in thei `'present location for many years; the applicants are replacing existing garage with only a minor variation; the variance uld not be detrimental to the neighbors, no neighbor complaints hav been received; and it would not adversely affect the zoning pla of the city`.., C. Graham added a finding that this lot is excepti ally deep, if i� were a standard sized lot the garage would be in he rear 30� of th�lot 3nd could be built to the side property li without a variance. �'�, C. Jacobs movc�ei for approval of this varian� with the following conditions: „F�'1) that the conditions of the Fi Marshal's July 19, 1985 memo sha11,�S�e met; and (2) that the project as ilt shall be consisten�'�with the plans submitted to the Planni Department as annotate,� by the Planner and date stamped July 30,��85. Second C. Graham� Comment on the motion: this actually violate� one of the princ�i:ples of good zoning, it continues a nonconforming �tuation, mak�'�'ng it permanent; however, mitigating circumstances exi:s>,�t in that it dq�s not detract from the neighborhood_and no neighbor objec`'�,�ions have -�%en received. Motion approved on a 6 0 roll call vote, C. Ta�lor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND REQUIRED PARKING SPACE (A CARPnRT) --- ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT 1469 BENITO AVENUE Reference staff report, 8/12/85, with attachments. Planner Towber reviewed this item: details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: extent of additional paving required in the front yard for driveway access (a second required space is proposed in the front of the home in the basement below the first floor); possibility of conditioning approval to require landscape softening in this area; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER ��� A regular called to 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Pres�nt: Absent: AUGUST 12, 1985 eting of the Planning Commission, City of F#�urlingame was der by Chairman Garcia on�Monday, August,�2, 1985 at Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Leahy, Schwal� Commissioner Taylor aham, Jacobs, Staff Present: H'elen Towber, Planner; R'`alph Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Sue Case�`Acting Attorney MINUTES - The minutes of the July 22, 1;985 meeting were unanimously approved . "`` ,-' ,; �� AGENDA - Item #8 postponed at the equest of the applicant. Order of the agenda was th�n apprq�ed. ITEMS FOR ACTION �' , ,-, ;" l. RECOMMENDATION OF FEIR-63P;:�'FOR OFFICE/AUTO RETAIL CONVERSION OF THE WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE A� 10•70 BROADWAY Planner Towber introduced Yane Nor�d,hav, principal, Baseline Environmental Consulting, the firm �.reparing this EIR. Ms. Nordhav discussed responses contained in the`Final EIR to comments received at the public hearing and to written comments received during the public review period. Commission asked for clarification on who would pay the cost (in excess of $100,000) if a signal�`:.were required at the Broadway/Carolan intersection. Consultant�,advised CE would expect the applicant to pay, no final decision has bee� made at this point. Planner Towber confirmed the FEIR has been r'�viewed by the City Planner and found to be adequate. t> C. Graham found FEIR-63P to be adequate and moved to recommend the environmental document to City Council for consid"eration. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Taylor absent. 2. VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT A GARAGE AT 309 CHAPIN LANE. Reference s'aff report, 8/12/85, with attachments. Pla�ner Towber reviewed e item: details of the request, applicants' letter, neighbor ' letter in support, Planning staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 12, 1985 concern about meeting UBC and UFC requirements for the front and back stairs; many homes in this area were built with only a 3' side yard, code now requires a 4' side setback. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. The applicants were present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During further discussion Randy Gibbs, applicant, advised he had revised plans with him this evening and discussed them with staff and Commission; he stated that putting the carport in the backyard would eliminate vegetation and that they hoped in the future to add a pool. Commmission comment: this is a typical lot for the city, many residents have long driveways to garages in the rear and still are able to provide open space for their families, difficult to find exceptional circumstances exist in this case; possibility of putting a two car garage under the home. There was Commission consensus that action could not be taken on the revised plans this evening. C. Jacobs moved to continu� the item to the meeting of August 26, 1985 if complete plans are received. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. 4. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 4,040 SF TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE �`�,ATHLETIC CLUB AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD _. �F"'""� 5. SP�CIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 4,040 SF STORY ADD'iTION TO THE ATHLETIC CLUB AT 1730 ROLLINS R4 D Reference s�aff report, 8/12/85, with attacY�nts. Planner Towber reviewed thi�s�,request to exoand the weigh room and aerobics room at Prime Time Ath tic Club and to allow of the required parking spaces on a nearby drain ,e easement (owned y the applicant) with access rights from the clu�ite by a So ern Pacific spur right-of-way. She discussed details�'b�£ the re est, parking requirement De artment of Public Works' concern� questions. Seven conditi public hearing. �,,� , P , applicant's letters, study meeting ere suggested for consideration at the Commission/staff dis �ssion: the tra�ic model which regulates impacts of development on e Broadway intercha e was based on the assumption that no use wou be placed on drainage e ements which generated additional pe hour trips; parking of recr tional vehicles, tennis court, etc. ave been allowed on the easement ut any use which would result in 'ntensification of uses on adjacent pr erties has not been allowed. The Department of Public Works has been ncerned this would be pr edent setting and double the traffic impact. PW Kirkup disc ssed history of the drainage easement. Acting CA ase commented he legality/practical enforcement of suggested condit' ns #2 and #3 dressing parking on the drainage easement, access over th S.P. spur and sale by the applicant of his portion of the drainage ease nt. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1985 Commissioner comment: it would seem that the key to this ole proposal is whether the applicant can acquire the connecting S.P. right of way. Arthur'Michael, applicant, was present. His comments: outhern Pacific'`� attorney has determined offer for the full 00' of the drainage'� rontage will be made to Prime Time first, hey have the funds, it�'s merely a matter of formalities; they ave been leasing the spur right .of-way since 1977. They will not dist rb any portion of the drainage di�ch, pavement is already in place; pr sently there are campers and uto rentals parked on this easeme ; Prime Time is asking for vehicle p rking which will move within an our's time, not overnight par 'ng. Chm. Garcia ope d the public hearing. T re were no audience comments. Two l tters expressing concer about the proposal were noted from: J. J.�Riggs, R& K Distribut�ors, 1701 Rollins Road (August 1, 1985) and Stuar Beattie, R& K Dis�°ributors (August 1, 1985). The public hearing was 'eclared closed. '� � Applicant commented h is not in fa or of adding more vehicles in the street and Prime Time as asked th ir members not to park on other properties. This propo al provid s parking to code. He suggested a condition could be attac ed that if the S.P. right-of-way were not purchased the permit woul be i alid; applicant accepted all seven conditions in the staff re�or � Commission concerns: impacte�`�parking in the area, applicant has not shown he will alleviate the,:s�uation, the problem of enforcement with off-site parking; this appl�.�cat'on is premature, applicant would be in a better position if he ov�ned th spur before presenting his proposal. Mr. Michael advised of hi� plan t use half of the easement for parking and lease half to an autO rental a�ncy for storage of vehicles (which would require another a�plication f� special permit amendment). Further Commissioner c�'omment: proposa� would be precedent setting, concern about traffic-impacts on Rollir`°i�,s Road and intersections and safety. Applicant dJid not believe the �ition would intensify the number of people caming to the club; the ctivities of this type of business change as�members' activities cha e. One Commissioner felt the request was �'easonable, applicant will�ovide more parking, wants to improv�`service to present club memb��' rs and does want to purchase the r�rght-of-way rather than lease it".�,� With the fin ing that there were no exceptional o extraordinary circumstanc s applicable to this property, C. Jacob moved to deny the variance. � econd C. Graham. Comment on the motion:�ot opposed to an increase q� activity on this site but have concern abo t parking off site; woul�d not object when the applicant owns the S.P. right-of-way. C. Jac s amended her motion to deny the variance without prejudice; C. Graha amended his second. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers chwalm and Garcia dissenting, C. Taylor absent. P.C. 8/26/85 Item #3 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: CONTINUED REVIEW OF VARIANCE TO BUILD A CARPORT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN 'rHE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 1469 BENITO AVENUE The Planning Commission reviewed this item at the meeting of August 12, 1985. At the public hearing the applicant proposed to submit revised plans addressing the issues identified by staff including the width of the front steps, the retaining wall at the end of the carport, the paving in the front setback area and the location of the rear stairs. The Commission directed the applicant to submit the revised plans to staff for review and continued the item to the August 26, 1985 meeting (Planning Commission minutes, August 12, 1985). Revised Plans Based on the revised plans the applicant still needs a variance to place his carport 3' from property line (4' required) (Code Sec. 25. 70.030). He revised his plans to address several concerns expressed by staff in the previous staff report (Planning Commission Staff Report, August 12, 1985). He has shown the driveway required to access the garage area to be created below the first floor. Based on the submitted plans, 50� of the front setback would be paved with this proposal. In the revised plans he has moved the bottom set of risers for the front stairs to the left one foot and widened them to 3'-2" which meet the minimums allowed for primary exiting by the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes. He has eliminated the retaining wall by overlaying the concrete driveway with new concrete which would change the slope and eliminate the need for building a retaining wall. The revised plans show the rear stairs and their relationship to the side yard. Based on the above the revised plans address a number of the concerns staff had with the previous plans. However the Planning issues relating to this project remain the same: the new garage space at the front will be difficult to access and therefore less likely to be used, the amount of paving in the front setback (50�) exceeds the typical amount of pavinq for a residential area, and the lot is deeper than a great many lots in the city, therefore with the placement of the house on the lot there is more room in the rear yard for a garage than on many lots in the city. The new plans address adequately access along the side of the house by the back door and exiting from the front door. City Staff Review City staff reviewed the revised plans at a staff ineeting on August 19, 1985 and had no additional comments. -2- Applicant's Letter The applicant did not submit a subsequent letter. The letter of July 17, 1985 is included in the attached staff report of August 12, 1985. Variance ReQuirements To grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that certain conditions exist on the property itself which justify qranting an exception to the code and do not create a circumstance of special privilege for this property (Code Sec. 25.54.020 a-d): a. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or class of uses in the district, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss; b. that such variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the property involved; c. that the granting of such variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvements; and d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The Planning Commission should state clearly the reasons for any action which they take. In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must make findings of exceptional circumstances relating to this property. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's July 29 and August 21, 1985 memos and the Director of Public Works' July 29, 1985 memo shall be met; 2. that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 15, 1985; and 3. that all construction shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame and if these standards cannot be achieved then the varia ce is not in effect. ���� � Margaret Monroe City Planner cc: Randy & Valerie Gibbs